On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:31:28AM -0500, Wenwen Wang wrote: >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >> <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:01:51AM -0500, Wenwen Wang wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >> >> <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:27:05PM -0500, Wenwen Wang wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >> >> >> <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:15:45PM -0500, Wenwen Wang wrote: >> >> >> >> In sctp_setsockopt_maxseg(), the integer 'val' is compared against >> >> >> >> min_len >> >> >> >> and max_len to check whether it is in the appropriate range. If it >> >> >> >> is not, >> >> >> >> an error code -EINVAL will be returned. This is enforced by a >> >> >> >> security >> >> >> >> check. But, this check is only executed when 'val' is not 0. In >> >> >> >> fact, if >> >> >> >> 'val' is 0, it will be assigned with a new value (if the return >> >> >> >> value of >> >> >> >> the function sctp_id2assoc() is not 0) in the following execution. >> >> >> >> However, >> >> >> >> this new value of 'val' is not checked before it is used to >> >> >> >> assigned to >> >> >> >> asoc->user_frag. That means it is possible that the new value of >> >> >> >> 'val' >> >> >> >> could be out of the expected range. This can cause security issues >> >> >> >> such as buffer overflows, e.g., the new value of 'val' is used as >> >> >> >> an index >> >> >> >> to access a buffer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This patch inserts a check for the new value of 'val' to see if it >> >> >> >> is in >> >> >> >> the expected range. If it is not, an error code -EINVAL will be >> >> >> >> returned. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Wenwen Wang <wang6...@umn.edu> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> net/sctp/socket.c | 22 +++++++++++----------- >> >> >> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ? >> >> >> > This patch is the same as previous one. git send-email <old file> >> >> >> > maybe? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Marcelo >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for your suggestion, Marcelo. I can send the old file. But, I >> >> >> have added a line of comment in this patch. >> >> > >> >> > I meant if you had sent the old patch again by accident, because you >> >> > said you worked on an old version of the tree, but then posted a patch >> >> > that also doesn't use the new MTU function I mentioned. >> >> > >> >> > Marcelo >> >> >> >> I worked on the latest kernel. But, I didn't find the MTU function >> >> sctp_mtu_payload(). >> > >> > Which tree are you using? >> > [a] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git >> > or >> > [b] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git >> > ? >> > >> > The function isn't on [a] yet, but it is on [b]. >> > >> > Marcelo >> >> Many thanks for your patience, Marcelo :) >> >> The tree I am working on is: >> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > Ahh! That explains the discrepancy :) > For networking patches, please refer to > Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt > It describes what the 2 trees I pointed out are and how they should be > used. > In short, both net and net-next are always newer than the one you're > using for networking subsystem. > > Regards, > Marcelo
I see now. Will work on the new networking trees. Thanks! Wenwen
